AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice V. Chitambaresh
The election of the returned candidate was called in question on the ground that there was an improper reception of 28 void votes. The election petitioner therefore impleaded only the returned candidate as a respondent to the election petition u/s 166 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Thereafter the election petition was sought to be amended by incorporating a relief of declaration that the election petitioner is the duly elected candidate. The period of 30 days for presentation of an election petition u/s 165 of the Kerala Municipality Act had however expired. The election petitioner contended that 28 void votes have in addition been improperly received tilting the result of the election. The election petitioner sought to implead the other contesting candidates also as respondents to the election petition. Such a procedure was warranted in view of Section 166 of the Kerala Municipality Act.
The court below has by the order impugned allowed amendment in respect of the following matters:-
(i) The declaration that the election petitioner is the duly elected candidate was incorporated.
(ii) That 28 void votes have been improperly received in addition to those mentioned in the election petition was incorporated.
The election petitioner filed a consolidated petition for amendment as well as to implead the contesting candidates as respondents. This has been allowed by the order impugned which is challenged by the returned candidate in this original petition.
The relief of declaration that the election petitioner is the duly elected candidate cannot be incorporated beyond the period of 30 days permitted u/s 165 of the Kerala Municipality Act. Similarly the impleadment of the contesting candidates as additional respondents to support the plea of declaration as above beyond the time limit cannot be countenanced. The law in this regard is well laid down in K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and Others, . This decision has been followed by this Court in Omana Vs. Sussi Kunjachan, . Therefore the amendment to the extent it seeks to add the relief of declaration that the election petitioner is the duly elected candidate and consequential impleadment of the contesting candidates as additional respondents 2 to 6 are set aside. The amendment to the extent that 28 void votes were improperly received in addition to those mentioned in the election petition is however permissible. This is only a material particular to amplify the material facts mentioned in the election petition to set aside the election. A reference in this connection to the decision in Abdulla v. Jose ( 2012 (1) KLT 22) is apposite. Resultantly the order in I.A. No. 6417 of 2011 in O.P. (Election) No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the court of the III Additional Munsiff of Thiruvananthapuram is modified as above.
The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs.